Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T11:41:43.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The symmetries and asymmetries of human–thing relations. A dialogue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2017

Ian Hodder  and
Gavin Lucas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a dialogue about the question of symmetry and asymmetry in human–thing relations, and the links between such asymmetries and those encountered in power relations amongst humans. The conversation discusses various issues, such as whether symmetry is possible in any kind of relation, how one defines asymmetry, whether there are different kinds of asymmetry, and how inequality between humans is related to the asymmetries in human–thing entanglements. The last issue is considered especially important in light of the various critiques that have been levelled at actor networks and other relational materialisms for their weakened political stance insofar as sources of inequality and injustice are so widely distributed that they become, in effect, apolitical.

Keywords

Entanglement theoryasymmetrypowerdependencyhumansthings
Type
Discussion Article
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 2017 , pp. 119 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberti, B., 2016: Archaeologies of ontology, Annual review of anthropology 45, 163–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, B., Jones, A. and Pollard, J. (eds), 2013: Archaeology after interpretation. Returning materials to archaeological theory, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
Barad, K., 2007: Meeting the universe halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, Durham, NC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, A., and Kosiba, S., 2016: How things act. An archaeology of materials in political life, Journal of social archaeology 16 (2), 115–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J., 2010: Vibrant matter. A political ecology of things, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Bloor, D., 1976: Knowledge and social imagery, Chicago.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R., 2013: The posthuman, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brughmans, T., Collar, A. and Coward, F., 2016: The connected past. Challenges to network studies in archaeology, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callon, M., and Law, J., 1997: After the individual in society. Lessons on collectivity from science, technology and society, Canadian journal of sociology 22 (2), 165–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conneller, C., 2011: An archaeology of materials. Substantial transformations in early prehistoric Europe, London.Google Scholar
Coole, D., and Frost, S. (eds), 2010: New materialisms. Ontology, agency, and politics, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
de Castro, E.V., 1998: Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4 (3), 469–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Castro, E.V., 2004: Exchanging perspectives. The transformation of objects into subjects in Amerindian ontologies, Common knowledge 10 (3), 463–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2006: A new philosophy of society. Assemblage theory and social complexity, London.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2016: Assemblage theory, Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F., 1983: Anti-Oedipus, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F., 1987: A thousand plateaus, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Descola, P., 1994: In the society of nature. A native ecology in Amazonia, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dolphijn, R., and van der Tuin, I. (eds), 2012: New materialism. Interviews and cartographies, Ann Arbor, MI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domanska, E., 2006: The return to things. Archaeologia Polona, 44, 171–85.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2016: Grounded objects. Archaeology and speculative realism, Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 93–113.Google Scholar
Fowler, C., 2013: The emergent past. A relational realist archaeology of Early Bronze Age mortuary practices, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowles, S., 2016: The perfect subject (postcolonial object studies), Journal of material culture 21 (1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, D.Q., Allaby, R.G. and Stevens, C., 2010: Domestication as innovation. The entanglement of techniques, technology and chance in the domestication of cereal crops, World archaeology 42 (1), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, D.Q., Stevens, C., Lucas, L., Murphy, C. and Qin, L., 2016: Entanglements and entrapments on the pathway toward domestication, in Der, L. and Fernandini, F. (eds), The archaeology of entanglement. Walnut Creek, CA, 151–72.Google Scholar
Gell, A., 1998: Art and agency, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves-Brown, P. (ed.), 2000: Matter, materiality and modern culture, London.Google Scholar
Haraway, D., 1991: Simians, cyborgs and women. The reinvention of nature, London.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2014: Entanglement and relation. A response to Bruno Latour and Ian Hodder, New literary history 45, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G., 2016: Immaterialism. Objects and social theory, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1971: Poetry, language, thought (trans. A. Hofstadter), London.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1973: Being and time, Oxford.Google Scholar
Henare, A., Holbraad, M. and Wastell, S. (eds), 2007: Thinking through things. Theorising artefacts ethnographically, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012: Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 2014: The asymmetries of symmetrical archaeology, Journal of contemporary archaeology 1 (2), 228–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 2016b: Studies in human–thing entanglement, Open Access.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2007: Lines. A brief history, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A., 2005: Lives in fragments? Personhood and the European Neolithic, Journal of social archaeology 5 (2), 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A., 2007: Memory and material culture, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A., 2012: Prehistoric materialities. Becoming material in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A., 2015: Meeting pasts halfway. A consideration of the ontology of material evidence in archaeology, in Wylie, A. and Chapman, B. (eds), Material evidence. Learning from archaeological practice, London, 324–38.Google Scholar
Knappett, C., 2005: Thinking through material culture, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knappett, C., 2011: An archaeology of interaction. Network perspectives on material culture and society, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knappett, C., 2013: Network analysis in archaeology. New approaches to regional interaction, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knappett, C., and Malafouris, L. (eds), 2008: Material agency. Towards a non-anthropocentric approach, New York.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1987: Science in action, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1993: We have never been modern, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1996: On actor-network theory. A few clarifications, Soziale Welt 47, 369–81.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., 2007: The unbearable lightness of prehistory, Journal of Iberian archaeology 9–10, 25–37.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., 2012: Understanding the archaeological record, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., 2015b: The mobility of theory, Current Swedish archaeology 23, 13–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malm, A., and Hornberg, A. 2014: The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative, Anthropocene review 1 (1), 62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandel, E., 1975: Late capitalism, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K., 1976: Capital, Vol. 1, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2007: Keeping things at arm's length. A genealogy of asymmetry, World archaeology, 39 (4), 579–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2010: In defense of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T. and Witmore, C., 2012: Archaeology. The discipline of things, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., and Witmore, C., 2015: Archaeology, symmetry and the ontology of things. A response to critics, Archaeological dialogues 22 (2), 187–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rindos, D., 2013: The origins of agriculture. An evolutionary perspective, New York.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., 2007: Symmetrical archaeology, World archaeology 39 (4), 589–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S., 1997: Caught in a web. The implications of ecology for radical symmetry in STS, Social epistemology 11 (1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, C. (ed.), 2013: Relational archaeologies. Humans, animals, things, London.Google Scholar
Webmoor, T., 2007: What about ‘one more turn after the social’ in archaeological reasoning? Taking things seriously, World archaeology 39 (4), 563–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, A.B., 1992: Inalienable possessions. The paradox of keeping-while-giving, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A.N., 1978: Process and reality, New York.Google Scholar
Whittle, A., and Spicer, A. 2008: Is actor network theory critique?, Organization studies 29 (4), 611–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2007: Symmetrical archaeology. Excerpts of a manifesto, World archaeology 39 (4), 546–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2014: Archaeology and the new materialisms, Journal of contemporary archaeology 1 (2), 203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar